Skip to main content

Full text of "THE FRAUD OF IN VITRO MEAT"

See other formats


eS 
oneene, 


no atatatete 
ecetetece’ 
seote’ 


oe 


S 


ce 
se 


& 
& 


pote 


ee 
psoas 
BE 


oon! 
fore: 
are! 
oe 

ie 


ros 
Beate 
5 


o 
"e 
"es 
ef 


“e 
5 


5 
acetal 
seetecete 
$0) 
s 


oe 
estetatetete 
eeatetetetateee 
oaeata! wectate te tcteec nce a lee, 
wetatetetecotatecee . : ctetetotececacetet 
. ae : 


on oot 


ORNS 
eetee 
recete 
eeaatete 
62525 
ene, 


ros 


res 


o 
es 
sees 
ox 
Ke 
rotore: 


eco 


°) 
5 


sont 

= 
eres 

etees 


oe 


nevateceters"sseveveteneceterereneee . ° ; ococece moore : " . 
ee 


RR 
ees 
acereneronece 

sesso 


Bovovoceres+ | sovorerorecere’ 
ses 


conanone 


eeseceaeseee 

ecesetaten 
eesescetatatatet stots 
ocescetatatetotatetotat 


0000050, 


"o's 
oats 


reson. 
Pe 
worere: 
eter et 
one 


ne 


fo! oe! 


~ 


ronosoceneee, 

ocetacetatte 

30500050085 e5ees 
seceaeets 


tates 
cosets 
eeetatetens 


"esece' 


nee", 
ote 
oe 
oe 


acon 


: 
: oe 
; ; 
% ween 
3 
°, 5 


nD 
Re 
etenonecetete 
soe 
s 
? o 
% 
Sas 
oceatate! 


e 
- 
ok 


oe 
ones 
ros 
os 
ron 
8° 


oa, 
ocare 
eee 
% 
0% 
sree 
eee 
ecsces 
ee 
ae! 
* 
re" 
°. 
< 
ates 
3 
ones 


oeeee a, 
sestetetstarstone® 
ocatecotetel 


ne 
mene’, 
eaeae 
eases 
% 
oes 
ee’ 
meee 
fonovetes 


stot ete’. yorerere- 0.0" 

atetetetetareceracere ; 
retecanatesecanesesenatesonee ees eaeetatatet 
Bitetatstetate® oteretete 
SHR SO 


SOI 
oreo 
SS 


atecececest 
rosecececocsess 


eogene, 


Se 
cococececeee 
oreseee, 


P08 


ones 
ee 
voee 


enaaee' 


se 
x 
: 
S25 


fe 


cocatotaven 


oo! 


at 


yonesesenecenes 
I 
SO 
ses 
Sees 


rerececene, 
Netetetetetec es 
e 
ros 


one 
econo, 
oretet 


Poee' 


Ss 
oor 
Ran 
ces 
% 


. stotete % ; estas atetee eatetavetetacetece’ 
etotetasetetarerecerenecereneeteneterets 3 foe eat cs rotetetet : esses ‘ weeatetatatatetacacetenetee 
. : eerste sicetatete te 8 rotetet os ° cree acetatotete 
secatecetetecsserssesen Se) s eee 5 . 2 eeece : neeeee 
# oP ete ete esos eo" Pe * rs 





Lauredal #007b 
Lauredalediciones.noblogs.org 
Lauredalediciones@autistici.org 


Faced with the meteoric ascend of in-vitro meat and its 
growing acceptance among animal rights activists and 
organizations, we have decided to compile in the form 
of an article all of our objections to this phenomenon 
labelled by the mainstream media, in a totally 
complacent and uncritical way, as "the food of the 
future". The purpose of this zine is exposing the reasons 
why we consider in-vitro meat an inmoral and selfish 
technology which isn't going to end animal explotaition, 
much less speciesism, in the hope that the animal rights 
activists and vegans that have bought into the idea of 
in-vitro meat rethink and reflect on what they are really 
supporting when they support in-vitro meat. 


Note: this is a translation of 'La Estafa de la Carne In- 
Vitro' (Lauredal 2019). You can find the original article (in 
spanish) in the following URL: 
https:/archive.org/details/carneinvitro/node/2up 


WHAT'S IN-VITRO MEAT? 
In-vitro meat! is a kind of meat which is obtained 
through cultivating animal cells in a laboratory, 
without needing to kill those animals. These cells, in a 
particular nutritional environment and under specific 
conditions, develop and multiply to form tissues and 
muscles similar to those of actual meat. According 
to Mark Post (co-founder of Mosa Meat and the first 
person in the world to develop an in-vitro hamburger, 
which he cooked and tried live at a press conference 
in London), with a single cell sample you could pro- 
duce, in theory, about 18,000 metric tons of meat (or 
175 million hamburgers). This technology isn’t limited 
to beef: it’s also possible to produce meat from other 
species or even other animal-derived products like 
milk, eggs or foie gras, as well as non-food products 
like leather or silk. This technology, according to its 
advocates, has the potential to replace all products 
obtained through the traditional animal agriculture 
industry, saving countless lives and greatly reducing 
animal suffering, as well as solving food scarcity on a 
global scale and stopping climate change. 

Lots of institutions, blogs and animal rights acti- 
vists celebrate this ambitious and laudable objective. 


1. Also known as synthetic meat, lab meat, cultured meat or, as 
its advocates like to call it for marketing reasons, clean meat. In 
this article we will be referring to it as in-vitro meat because we 
know they don't like that name. 


Anima Naturalis has translated and published seve- 
ral informative articles about this type of meat pro- 
duction and its possibilities, including a propaganda 
piece about Tyson Foods (the world’s biggest meat 
producer) and its investments in cultured meat and 
plant-based proteins. Other organizations like Ani- 
mal Equality, Proveg International, PETA, Mercy for 
Animals and the Humane League Nave also decla- 
red themselves in support of in-vitro meat. Among 
these, PETA is one of the most enthusiastic: they 
have published various positive articles about this 
topic and have been financing research since 2012 
— that year they even offered $1 million to whoever 
was Capable of successfully developing and com- 
mercializing in-vitro chicken meat. Blogs such as 
Respuestas Veganas and activists like Gary You- 
rofsky and Ohad Cohen also share this optimism. 
We disagree with all of them and do not share this 
confidence in in-vitro meat as a good strategy for 
ending animal exploitation, much less speciesism. 
In this zine we'll try to explain why. 


THE "CLEAN MEAT LOBBY" 

Before explaining why we position ourselves aga- 
inst in-vitro meat, we want to provide some context 
about its more prominent advocates, known as the 
“clean meat lobby.” The most staunch defenders of 
in-vitro meat and the most visible faces of the lobby 
are two former animal rights activists, Paul Shapiro 


and Bruce Friedrich, who went from promoting ve- 
ganism and advocating for the abolition of livestock 
farming to collaborating and profiting financially 
from the meat industry. 

Paul Shapiro is the author of the book Clean Meat 
and the founder of Compassion Over Killing, an or- 
ganization whose goal was advocating for animal 
rights and veganism, although in the early 2000s 
this shifted to a more welfarist approach. In 2005 
Shapiro left the organization to join the Humane So- 
ciety of the United States (HSUS), a welfarist organi- 
zation that has declared itself in favor of extensive 
livestock farming, has collaborated with numerous 
animal exploiters and has even hired a livestock far- 
mer, Joe Maxwell, as Director of Rural Development 
and Outreach. In addition, the HSUS created, in con- 
junction with Whole Foods CEO John Mackey, an or- 
ganization called Global Animal Partnership (GAP), 
whose slogan is “feel good about the meat you eat” 
and whose purpose is to rate and certify meat pro- 
ducts based on their own scale of acceptability of 
various levels of violence towards animals. After Sha- 
piro left HSUS in 2018 due to several accusations of 
sexual harassment (in which many other members 
of the organization, like its former president Wayne 
Pacelle, were involved) he publicly announced his 
new company, the Better Meat Company, dedicated 
to helping meat companies increase their profits by 
adding plant-based proteins to their products. 


Bruce Friedrich, former vice president of PETA 
and former Farm Sanctuary employee, is a foun- 
ding member of Farm Forward, whose mission is 
to advocate for the “happy exploitation” of farmed 
animals and the promotion of extensive animal 
farms. In 2016 he funded a non-profit organization 
called the Good Food Institute (GF), through which 
he advocates and promotes “clean meat,” alongsi- 
de his venture capital funds Clear Current Capital 
and New Crop Capital. Friedrich is a staunch wel- 
farist, raving about every time that companies like 
McDonald's announce any kind of animal welfare 
measure, No matter how meager. 

Other notorious “clean meat” advocates include 
Jason Matheny (founder of New Harvest and pio- 
neer in cultured meat research), Matt Ball (president 
of One Step For Animals, an organization focused on 
getting people to stop eating chickens), Leah Garces 
(president of Mercy for Animals and former executi- 
ve director of World Farming), Miyun Park (first exe- 
cutive director of GAP), Josh Balk (former member 
of Compassion Over killing, current Vice President of 
Farm Animal Protection at HSUS, and co-founder of 
Eat Just, Inc.), and Chris Kerr (chief investment offi- 
cer at New Crop Capital). All of these people are de- 
fenders of the exploitation of animals. They benefit 
economically from it, and denigrate and harm the 
animal liberation movement, mocking vegans and 
labeling abolitionists as “idealistic” and “naive.” 


IN-VITRO MEAT DEPENDS ON THE 

MEAT INDUSTRY AND CAPITALISM AS A WHOLE 
One of the objectives in which the “clean meat” lobby 
invests much effort is obtaining financial Support in 
the form of investments from goverments and big 
corporations, including meat industry giants. Their 
goal, as we Nave already stated, is for in-vitro meat 
production to replace intensive livestock farming 
(extensive livestock farming doesn’t seem to be a 
problem for them), but it is hard to know to what 
extent they take this goal seriously, or rather if the 
only thing that motivates them is profit, given their 
continuous collaboration with the largest animal 
exploitation companies in the world. Tyson, Perdue, 
Smithfield, Cargill, Hormel ... all of these meat com- 
panies are funding research and development of in- 
vitro meat, but the lobby doesn’t find anything in- 
consistent or conflicting in this. Bruce Friedich said 
the following in a TED Talk: 


“We don't want to disrupt the meat industry, we 
want to transform it. We need their economies of 
scale, their global supply chain, their marketing ex- 
pertise and their massive consumer base.” 


2.'The next global agricultural revolution | Bruce Friedrich' on 
YouTube. 


And in a conversation with Paul Shapiro he stated: 


“Our hope is that the meat industry will be on the 
forefront at this because who better to do plant-ba- 
sed or clean meat chicken than Perdue and Tyson? 
Who better to do a plant-based or a clean meat 
spam —aren’t we excited about that? — than Hor- 
mel Foods?” 


In addition, Isha Datar, Executive Director at New 
Harvest, wants “Tyson Foods and other meat com- 
panies to be a part of this movement.” 


Friedrich and his colleagues seem to believe 
that the meat industry is the only sector capable 
of handling this market, since it already has the in- 
frastructure, marketing skills, manufacturing capa- 
city, distribution chains and budget necessary to 
develop it. If the in-vitro meat industry depends so 
much on the traditional livestock industry, precisely 
on those who are killing and exploiting billions of 
animals every year, how are they going to achieve 
their supposed goal of ending animal exploitation? 
In our view, what they are achieving is the oppo- 


3. 'Fireside chat - Bruce Friedrich and Paul Shapiro' on Youtube. 


4. Shapiro, Paul: 'Clean Meat: How Growing Meat From Animals 
Will Revolutionize Dinner and the World’. 


site: they are ensuring the survival of the meat in- 
dustry giants, since they see in-vitro meat as an op- 
portunity to diversify their offerings in the so-called 
“protein market,” to control their competitors and 
to ensure their survival in (and dominance of) the 
market. The following statements from one of Car- 
gill Protein’s leaders, Brian Sikes, make it very clear 
that large meat companies have no intention to 
stop exploiting non-human animals: 


“Our strategy Is to invest in all forms of protein [...] 
Our cell-cultured protein and plant-based inves- 
tments will continue to complement the $175 billion 
we have invested in animal protein over the last 
three years. Keeping all options on the table will help 
feed people and deliver great-tasting protein to our 
customers.”” 


Large meat companies are not concerned with in- 
vitro meat because, on the one hand, it is a product 
that will allow them to respond to an ever increasing 
meat demand without replacing its current supply 
and, on the other hand, acquiring in-vitro meat com- 
panies allows them (as we have seen) to dominate 
the market and get rid of their competitors. We're 


5. 'Protein innovation: Cargill invests in cultured protein’, 
cargill.com 


already seeing this in the plant-based meat market: 
meat companies keep buying plant-based meat 
companies and convincing vegans that consuming 
their products is perfectly ethical and consistent 
with our principles, and thus obtaining, due to our 
naivety, juicy economic benefits. 

Apart from that, another huge problem is the dis- 
proportionate faith the advocates of “clean meat” 
have in capitalism and the free market: they are 
completely uncritical of the economic system that 
has caused and keeps causing unprecedented le- 
vels of suffering, inequality and environmental 
destruction. They present capitalism (the econo- 
mic system that, in the last century, has annihila- 
ted more than half of the non-human population 
from the face of the Earth)® as the solution to all 
of society’s problems, when it is precisely what has 
caused them. Bruce Friedrich has stated in an in- 
terview that capitalism will succeed where vega- 
nism has failed (“We've tried to convince the world 
to go vegan, and it has not worked”).” 

To defend these claims they use deceitful argu- 
ments, highlighting the few positive consequences 
that capitalism has had on the welfare of certain 


6. '2018 Living Planet Report'!, WWF. 


7. ‘This Animal Activist Used to Get in Your Face. Now He’s 
Going After Your Palate’, the New York Times. 


species while minimizing and ignoring the nega- 
tive consequences it has had on the hundreds of 
billions of non-human animals that are treated 
as mere tools for making profit. In his book, Paul 
Shapiro writes about how intensive whaling ended 
thanks to the kerosene lamp and, later, the Edison 
light bulb. He suggests that we'll “have a greater 
chance of making an impact in the for-profit fields 
of technology, engineering, and entrepreneurship” 
rather than with non-profit work and activism. The 
truth, however, we already know: that capitalism 
is an inherently exploitative and immoral system 
that relies on the exploitation of others and the 
objectification of human and non-human bodies 
to function. The fact that on certain anecdotal oc- 
casions it has led to the end of the exploitation of 
certain species is an anomaly that diverts attention 
from the real problem. We cannot, under any cir- 
cumstances, entrust animal liberation to capitalist 
corporations, much less to meat companies. 


IN-VITRO MEAT ISN’T FREE 

OF ANIMAL EXPLOITATION 

Cultured meat is Supposed to be a product free of 
animal exploitation, but is this true? Something that 
its advocates don't seem too interested in talking 
about — since it would contribute to their facade fa- 
lling apart — is that in-vitro meat does involve some 
animal exploitation, specifically two kinds: 


First of all, the cells necessary to produce tissues 
(which cannot be reproduced infinitely at the mo- 
ment) are extracted from real animals. In-vitro meat 
advocates love to say that these cells are extracted 
through a painless and respectful procedure, consis- 
ting of plunging alOmm long and Imm wide needle, 
or even a 1Omm wide hollow cylindrical scalpel, into 
the neck of an animal. But honestly, this sounds like a 
joke to us. Have we forgotten that we live in a capita- 
list system that prioritizes profits over well-being, dig- 
nity and freedom? Is it sensible to trust corporations 
to treat these animals ethically and respectfully? 
Let’s remember that these same corporations spend 
a great deal of time and effort trying to convince us 
that the individuals they lock up in industrial farms 
live bucolic lives in which they never suffer any type of 
pain or discomfort. The reality of these animals lives is 
far removed from that idyllic vision, since to these cor- 
porations they are merely objects and property. We 
have reason to believe that the same exact thing will 
happen in the case of cell extraction. Even so, regard- 
less of how painless the process is or isn’t, who gave 
us the right to violate the bodily autonomy of these 
beings? Would we think it is fair to do the same thing 
to humans? It doesn’t seem fair to us. 

Second, cells need avery specific environment to re- 
produce and form tissues correctly. In most cases this 
medium is fetal bovine serum (FBS) extracted from 


the fetuses of pregnant cows after their slaughter.® 
The process is as follows: first the cow is killed, then 
the still-living fetus is removed from its womb and, 
without any type of anesthesia (and there is eviden- 
ce that the fetus can feel pain), blood is extracted di- 
rectly from its heart in along and unpleasant process. 

The use of FBS is, in addition to being cruel and im- 
moral, an incredibly profitable business for slaughter- 
houses. A single liter can cost between €300 and 
€800? and, according to Mark Post, 50 liters of FBS are 
needed to produce a single hamburger. They need so 
much that slaughterhouses can’t possibly respond to 
the demand, which leads to such a high price. Many 
companies are trying to find a way to replace FBS 
with plant-based alternatives, given its tremendous 
cost, but so far few have managed to develop a plant- 
based medium that is as convenient and works as 
well as FBS. However, even if plant-based alternatives 
are developed, we can’t be sure that they will be used. 
For the companies and individuals involved in in-vitro 
meat the problem with FBS is financial, not ethical, 
so it wouldn't be surprising if they ended up solving 
it the same way the Nave solved the inefficiency and 
low profitability of regular meat production: produ- 
cing on a massive scale and cutting expenses in all 


8. 'The Gruesome Truth About Lab-Grown Meat', slate.com 
9. As of March 2021, we have seen prices as high as $2,000 a liter. 


possible fields — animal welfare, working conditions, 
etc. The reproductive cycles of the animals exploited 
in factory farms are already fully controlled, so we 
don't think it’s unreasonable to think that they could 
open macro-farms with the sole purpose of produ- 
cing FBS on an industrial scale (or integrate FBS pro- 
duction into their already existing operations). 

A plant-based products company called Eat Just, 
Inc. (formerly Hampton Creek) has recently jumped 
on the in-vitro meat bandwagon. Its founder, Josh Te- 
trick, affirms that they are currently developing cultu- 
red meat 100% free of animal exploitation. 


“You could get all the animal cells we need from 
a feather. You just cut off the quill tip of a naturally 
discarded feather, and there is all the cell structure 
we need. Then we grow the product in a culture de- 
veloped entirely from plant extracts. There will not 
be any ‘donor herds’ nor the need for any. You could 
pick up all the animal cells we need just by picking 
up the shed feathers at a sanctuary.”” 


But actions speak louder than words. We see it all 
the time with welfarism: big corporations are cons- 
tantly telling us that they take the wellbeing of their 


10. 8. Hampton Creek founder Tetrick pledges his “clean meat” 
will be vegan', Animals 24-7. 


animals seriously, but nonetheless they still exploit, 
torture and murder them, as well as breaking the few 
animal welfare laws that exist. Also, we don’t think Eat 
Just, Inc. is exactly trustworthy, as many of its emplo- 
yees have accused Josh Tetrick of lying or obscuring 
the truth in their marketing campaigns and the la- 
beling of their products. To us, he doesn’t seem like 
the type of person you can trust. On the other hand, 
even if they actually produced their in-vitro chicken 
wings (or whatever they are planning) ethically, using 
fallen feathers and a plant-based alternative to FBS, 
have they not reached this point thanks to countless 
investigations and experiments in which non-human 
animals were indeed exploited and tortured? The 
future in-vitro meat market is being built upon the 
bodies of all the non-human animals that suffered 
and died as a result of those investigations. Everyone 
who researches, develops, produces, commercializes 
and promotes in-vitro meat has blood on their hands, 
with no exception. 


IN-VITRO MEAT PERPETUATES 

SPECIESISM AND MEAT CULTURE 

We have already made clear that in-vitro meat ne- 
cessarily entails animal exploitation (albeit to a lesser 
degree than traditional livestock farming) and that 
it is unlikely that it will be the key to ending animal 
exploitation, due its dependence on the meat indus- 
try and capitalism as a whole. But we still have to 


deal with an equally important problem that would 
continue to exist even if the other two didn't: in- 
vitro meat perpetuates meat culture and the he- 
gemonic myths that justify and normalize animal 
exploitation. A major flaw in the arguments of the 
in-vitro meat advocates is that they do not seem to 
differentiate between the physical act of damaging 
and killing an animal and the social and symbolic 
act of perpetuating meat culture and speciesism. 
Fetishizing the exploitation of non-human animals, 
collaborating with livestock farms and presenting 
meat as an oh-so-precious-and-delicate product is 
also a way of harming animals, not just the act of 
physically mistreating them. This is because, as sta- 
ted on the Clean Meat Hoax website, “meat is not 
a thing, but an idea, even a web of related ideas. 
That means that when you strengthen one strand 
of the web, you strengthen the whole web — the 
idea of meat as a whole.” 

Going back to Eat Just, Inc.: when we first publis- 
hed this zine, there was a section on their website" 
dedicated to promoting their next product, in-vitro 
Wagyu beef (the most expensive meat in the world) 
that read as follows: 


Tl. It can be found (as of March 2021) in their Medium.com page: 
https://medium.com/justegg/a-new-tradition-721e5039de4 


“On a sprawling farm nestled in the picturesque 
foothills of Mt. Akagi in Japan, the Toriyama family 
has worked for more than 30 years to raise cows 
whose meat has the rich, umami taste and exquisi- 
te marbling that makes Wagyu unique and desired 
around the world. Drawing on cutting-edge scien- 
ce and a half-century of experience, the Toriyama 
family has created new standards for this delicacy, 
though very few have been able to try it. [...] Ultima- 
tely, with a few cells from the best cows in the world, 
we'll be able to bring the Toriyama family's tradition 
to millions more — building a healthier, stronger and 
more just food system along the way. [...] When as- 
ked recently by a journalist why Toriyama is taking 
this bold step to usher in a new era of more sustaina- 
ble meat production, Wataru Toriyama replied: “The 
point is to deliver deliciousness to everyone” 


In this way, they reinforce the idea that consump- 
tion of meat (and other foods of animal origin) is, as 
Melanie Joy puts it, “normal, natural and necessary.” 
Most in-vitro meat promotion campaigns focus on 
the pleasure of eating meat, its importance to our 
gastronomic cultures and how healthy it is for our 
bodies. For instance, Aleph Farms, an in-vitro meat 
startup from Israel, promotes its products this way: 
“We grow real, delicious steak directly from cow cells 
without harm to animals or the environment, so you 
can enjoy the steak you love knowing you’ve made 


a choice that’s better for you, and the planet. [...] We 
believe meat is one of life's pleasures, to be celebra- 
ted and enjoyed without the downsides to health 
and the environment.” Paul Shapiro in his book des- 
cribes his experience eating cultured foie gras from 
Hampton Creek (now, Eat Just, Inc.): “as | closed my 
eyes and let the fatty liver melt on my tongue, the 
Hampton Creek foie gras brought me an amount 
of pleasure I'll confess | was a little embarrassed to 
admit.” Isha Data started her TED Talk with the fo- 
llowing: “Hi everyone, I’m Isha Datar and | love to eat 
meat. For me, meat is precious because it’s the main 
feature, it defines my meals.” 

These statements not only perpetuate the idea 
that meat and animal derived products are pleasu- 
res to be enjoyed and celebrated, but also the idea 
that consuming them is necessary for us and part of 
human ‘nature. As Bruce Friedrich stated in a con- 
ference, “[wJhat I’ve come to realize though, is that 
most people just really like eating meat. | don’t know 
if it’s physical, or psychological, or emotional, but it's 
true.” He also said in an interview with the New York 
Times that “we need to change the meat, because 


12. 'Re-Thinking Meat: Isha Datar at TEDxToronto on Youtube. 


13. 'From Agitator to Innovator: Why | Swapped Activism for 
Food Tech | Bruce Friedrich | TedxBethesda' en Youtube. 


we aren't going to change human nature.”* Maastri- 
cht University, as an explanation for its support for in- 
vitro meat research, argued that “/hJumans asa race 
have shown no sign of wishing to eat less meat, so it 
is unrealistic to think about eradicating meat from 
the human diet in the future.”” The dissemination 
of these ideas defeats the efforts of anti-speciesist 
activists who try to make people understand that 
consuming animal derived products is cruel and un- 
necessary, and that the abundance of meat in our 
diets is not the result of an inherent “necessity” or 
our “great appetite” for meat, but rather something 
cultural, caused by speciesism, capitalism and pa- 
triarchy. 

Furthermore, the fact that we can even imagine 
the idea of consuming meat, artificial or not, is possi- 
ble thanks to the belief that non-human animals are 
nothing more than our property and that the value 
of their lives is directly proportional to their useful- 
ness. This beliefs, apart from justifying and allowing 
for the use of non-human animals in the research 
and development of in-vitro meat technology (ma- 
king it perfectly legal and socially acceptable to stick 
needles in a non-human animal's neck, to forcefully 


14. ‘This Animal Activist Used to Get in Your Face. Now He’s 
Going After Your Palate’, the New York Times. 


15. Shapiro, Paul: 'Clean Meat: How Growing Meat From Animals 
Will Revolutionize Dinner and the World’. 


impregnate them and kill them while they are preg- 
nant), make us see food when we are in front of a 
dead body. That too is speciesism. 

In the words of Gary Francione: “if we were 
dumpster diving and found a human arm that was 
made from a culture of human cells, we would not 
think that it was acceptable consume the arm. Why? 
Because human body parts are not things to eat. We 
need to start thinking in the same way about ani- 
mals: the body parts of animals and products made 
from animals — however produced — are not food.””® 
By keeping people hooked on meat we are only per- 
petuating the idea that non-human animal carcas- 
ses are food. Refraining from eating animal corpses 
is a matter of respect for their lives and their deaths 
and a consequence of understanding that non-hu- 
man animals are subjects with intrinsic value, re- 
gardless of whether or not they can be of use to us, 
and that they do not exist to satisfy our whims. 


IN CONCLUSION 

Finally, we want to ask a question: if veganism is 
supposed to mean being against animal exploita- 
tion and avoiding the consumption of products that 
entail such exploitation as much as possible, why 
are so many vegans defending in-vitro meat and 


16. 'Animal Advocates Speak Out', on Cleanmeat-hoax.com 


willing to consume it? Of course, this technology 
is capable of producing a massive amount of meat 
with very few animals, which could potentially re- 
duce exploitation greatly, but we can’t begin to un- 
derstand when “less animals exploited” is enough, 
when we could aspire perfectly to “no animals ex- 
ploited.” Isn’t universal veganism and animal agri- 
culture abolition a much better goal, as it wouldn't 
involve any amount of exploitation? The idea of 
abolishing animal agriculture can seem idealistic 
but, aren't all liberation struggles idealistic? Isn't it 
by aiming high that struggles progress? We don't 
think it’s an “all or nothing” situation, but a matter 
of being firm in our principles and taking the path 
that we believe is the fairest and most appropriate 
to end speciesism and animal exploitation. 
Exploiting and killing animals is not justifiable 
when there is no need to: there is an immense va- 
riety of alternatives to any product of animal origin, 
Whatever it is. In-vitro meat is an unnecessary tech- 
nology in which billions of dollars are being wasted. 
It has caused and continues to cause suffering to 
probably thousands of non-human animals. All that 
money and effort could be invested in anti-specie- 
sism education and in supporting the animal libe- 
ration movement. In-vitro meat is nothing more 
than a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. It is, 
as a Veggieboards forum user puts it, “another case 
of humans trying to find the longest possible way 


to get from Point A to Point B and calling it ‘pro- 
gress,’ rather than taking the easiest and most logi- 
cal path.” Wouldn't the resources used to research, 
develop and promote in-vitro meat, as well as edu- 
cate the public to trust foods produced in a labora- 
tory (eliminating the “yuck factor”), be better spent 
promoting veganism and the idea that non-human 
animals aren't objects that we have the right to use 
for our benefit? By prioritizing profit and giving so 
much weight to society's caprice for eating animal 
products, in-vitro meat advocates are throwing away 
decades of anti-speciesist activism and helping the 
movement move further away from anti-speciesism 
and abolitionism towards more welfarist, compla- 
cent and capitalist approaches. 


SOURCES/REFERENCES 


- Shapiro, Paul: ‘Clean Meat: How Growing Meat 
From Animals Will Revolutionize Dinner and the 
World’. 


- Clean Meat Hoax: 'The Capitalist Free Market Has 
Always Betrayed Animals-and It's Doing It Again’, 
‘Who's Really Behind the Clean Meat Lobby: How 
a Movement Was Sold Out', ‘Clean Meat Discourse 
Reinforces All Meat Culture’. 


- Vegan Trove: ‘The Science of “SuperMeat”. If It 
Sounds Too Good To Be True, It Probably Is‘ 


- Youtube.com: '2019 Conscious Eating Conference - 
Cell-Based Meat Debate' 


- Youtube.com: 'Vegans Spill The Truth About Lab 
Grown Meat (*FULL PANEL DISCUSSION*)' 


socetetotone.-” cetacean eeatetoteetot eter Mereres at SK I 

aceretetetete- RS sevevececocecone et . : etotececetecere 

acorn’ -asaneraeroneeey SR RN Cotetetetones+s000 % socores erent % Se RRR 
ovovovesocncoseeauecesecocecononecoeeeens Ses oe Peet CR COI RR 


> jne.e.e.8 6.0. 
esas staneconesccanecenesee eatetocecatesetotae 


one 


es 
Reet ee ee 
oot oc ec ecetene’ 

+ orotetetete’s 


ere cavotetoneseneconeeenees eee se earetatecanecatoceseten : 
os osaconeconescneronesonesonetenes sesanee estate statetetets ncstatecarecasonetonetenetenet 
wavetococococecorocecacacanarec core stetete® . > 5 ote teetetorenetece 
eroceeeeeeeeeseet : Se . * 


essceaeseetat 
SRR 
oteceranen 


a oee' 
SS 


% 
otetate 
rote, 


oe 


otatarererececeraees 
SRR RD 


ratetetetate 
etoececene’ 
ste a ecestesanetateceteee 
esestetan et otatere o > rosococe, Patetetatetetatet 


cose: eeseeeseeeteeeeees 
avatee 


ots 
eoatetetate 
o eotetete 

esetaratetett 

eoecstanstatetes 

easeteere sta 

raPare” «ates 


. 2 
oveterececocers 
RR RS 

seereeetnnnrerercrers 

ratetabatetotatetetetatetetatsterets ‘ 
evataatatatetatetatetatetatetatotatetatonetanets watetetetavarocetes egeronecesonere 
seuocesocesocecece, ¢ eres evererereere" wototore ona oe 0.8re Ss 
satotecece, x seetepececececescsesesenocccece 
otoveres ° cote 5 woteteteteterereerererececococecccocerererecececccetes 
ocestetatetatetotatetatetets wrerecscegesonccccecesoccseeococscoeesccecceesccucseeesrocececceesesseoceresscecesersceeg 
on ovoresegeetees: seceetee o5ec tet etate Ostet ahaa atate®, OSS RRO RD 
one. 08. *. 8,010.00 008 SSC 3 0n0.0-0-0.0.8-8-6. 000.008. 8. 
otacerawovececonesese, ctegece eccetatatetetacenete eters 
oretataracoceterece RRS ; eesesescsocecees 50 


aoe 


se etatetatete : 
sate a ota tate oes eetee ° @ one. 
ose racetatecatecetonet : 
9 
sete 
eeeeattate 
seeacetatetate 
costar statetatanates 
esstasneoteeeanae 


vasetonens 


ororeces 
rotetatete 


cetaretetetetetets 
overecetacer cecee cess 
sotetatet ett 

Potetetotetetetores 

wotetotecacoce 


x 
@ 


stoteracetoters: 
Sotetasececececececcoes 


9 


soteterecetecerssecerere’ 
recotet S : es . cee atatetetetenesesesetenetet 
severe coratetenateteceteteteneterenet 2 Riscocete Beeessssesesesssssssarensnsnens 
ccareteteteconsrasetereeanaresesonen ptetotatatatetonanats oes ecesesoces pesntoesnotneeeesntseeeees 
yosoconoseseso.c.e,0,ese: ocenes s Sata jeonezesese.°. Dea SD wonesese,0ce 
votetetetetetecatesecace d Re avavetevererere 2 Botototarececes es 
eceaeee ay eaectatet 8° . % ; 0ea0yeteeaee or oPaPatahehat a a's 
ocarecota 


rasegetocececorote 
sestotatetetets 
socerere co secece, 


; see ‘ < Sehey SR 
cotete : on) ‘ c orarocevareresetotetetesoret 
©.0.0.8.0.6 O + O o%s*eetetet se”. x 
RRR RR oe . ones cotetecececeeres 
ccotecet atone 8 SSRs ; ecto resseeceecatstanee 
sesorerececococon . roteteteetot ete : SR i HIN NH HD 
orator etetetetatetere et etes eet erator arece 0, SN 


080: 


eee 


sone 

a 
os 

. 


% 
se 
“5 
rare 


no 
o 


<5 


gee 
sesee 


ef 
oe 


ote 
ce 
xo 


one" 


Se 


a5 


* 
es weveteteteroven orate 
ogee hehe! ron reesecococenes#,oc0.0.eces 
see ste % rat econatetotatetet eters Sareretete 
setesece arotenecece ersten econetonatconevocanes otatetetetatetotatecore stetatetetetetatete! nracetat tat aonatecetetetecee 
"e See SCR RIX IH : : *eMerereren osoteresoee, eosesocese. ° "e SR PRIN RIN 
mes SRR : atetetatatetotatetonnssseee 
Petetatatstotatscorets 
eX, 


ete 


"atetece 
e' 
ese tats 
sot 
"ete 
fo 
at 


tate 
tenets 
ocevavareserecevevaroceres 
oretatatetatetetoretecereren 
5 


one 
ye: 
ona 0' 
rote. 
ote 


"ees 
sete 


re! 
Pareto ne’ 


, 


eX, 
roseonc.0ce. 


sesocenecee 


pore. 


ae 
a 


rere 
ene 


rons 


5°, netatetatets 
RR NICD 
toteretacetetatetetecets 
eet: es 


es 
eaten 
aeatetaacatetet 
a tatatetetacee 

ceecatettee ose ° ectatatetete eeeseae reteset 
OO er ee o.° 9 8 " >. “ ve B COO 
sececeeretore’ sorocececee crotocereretororecererore orecorereroeee 
SoS eee SRS 


ronotete 


eceteronee 
eaceeatecee 


S505 
Rao SIX 
osesegceeges 


SS 

eaeee 

cvotetetecocon 
ogocosecese: RNR 
ea I OH 8 . ° eS i ones’ atetetetetat ee i 

orator ete'e "eee Peter ete e' oC ere*oe' eee es e Were 'e Porete’ eo’ oe a ete eee ee otere’s’e' ere’